February 19, 2012

Except... soccer moms don't play soccer. And security moms — is that really a famous term? — aren't providing the security. The "mom" part of the term is about... well, what is it about? It's what patronizing politicos call the women who they imagine don't think, but emote and intuit their way through elections. Or perhaps, in part, it's that women who are mothers are concerned about the children. In that light, a "birth control mom" isn't a woman who wants her birth control devices. As a soccer mom likes to see the kids playing soccer, a birth control mom likes to see the kids using birth control, when they fuck, which they will do... you can't stop 'em... or if you think you can, you might already be a Santorumite.

157 comments:

The Left does it again. They take a particularly hostile and offensive (opposite of defensive) stance. Then when people react, they paint themselves as "on the defense" from forces on the right. Brilliant really.

What about helicopter moms? How about a shout out to the hovering-type parents.

Rialby is right. About the left. This is a fight that the left cares about way way way way way more than the right.

Already I see my reliably socialist friend posting about the historic efforts of progressives in the birth control fight (eugenics not mentioned). For non-political-junkies I think the reaction is "huh?"

The left is desperate for a social issue -- any social issue -- to distract from the failure of their economic policy.

It's pretty demoralizing watching the media and Zero campaign create this issue out of thin air. I mean, nobody wants the government in our bedrooms...we just want the government to PAY for what we do in our bedroom!

The Garden of Eden was the ultimate theocracy. The tree of knowledge was intentionally in Adam's and Eve's face with free will functioning as the only deterrent. Liberals always think of a theocracy as being forced upon them by the state, it is just the opposite.

Unfortunately, there is a sizable section of the women's vote that does not think about their vote logically. They do emote and intuit their way through elections. That's why women have been so pro Democrat in their voting as a block. Even intelligent women can be pulled and swayed over to the fantasy of the Democratic savior. (see author of blog)

Makes as much sense as Planned Parenthood and the concept of reproductive rights, not to mention making as much sense as "freedom of choice" means compelling others to do something they do not want to do.

Again, it is a matter of the Orwellian manipulation of language and the meaning of words.

"Soccer Mom" was invented to describe a previously undescribed demographic--affluent white suburban mothers. The type who spend all their free time attending to the needs of their children (by, for instance, organizing and/or attending weekend soccer practice/games).

"Security Moms" free-rode on a popular term while describing a demographically very similar (and overlapping) group of women who are concerned about the safety of their children.

"Birth Control Moms" takes the next step, free-riding not only on a popular term, but on the generally positive connotations in the hopes that the population it describes (not even sure who that is) will receive the same good will and attention as the group for whom the original term was created.

It's the perfect liberal construction--all the emotions, none of the meaning.

My understanding is that the birth control pill costs about $20 a month. Are there truly women so destitute that they can't afford five dollars a week to pick up this tab? This issue seems totally manufactured.

The voting rights act requires approval by the Department of Justice of every change in enrollment policy in our local schools here. A new charter school in my town has required annual approvals of enrollment, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers and teacher and administrator time. Yet the schools here are considerably more integrated than they were in Chicago, where I lived prior to living in South Carolina.

The assumption underlying the Voting Rights Act is that the American south is still too racist to govern itself without direct supervision from Washington.

No one is talking about changing substantive voting rights. They are tired of having the Justice Department supervise their local school systems.

The phony numbers to make people think things are getting better just don't seem to be getting any traction.

The phoniest of the phony numbers is the inflation index. They back out gas prices and food prices! You know, the stuff we buy every day. Gas prices have almost doubled during Obama's administration. Food is way up, too.

The last time we had horrible inflation was the 1970's. Stagflation, they called it. No growth in the economy, and prices going up, up, up.

Back then, the Fed raised interest rates really high in order to stabilize prices. Today, we are keeping our interest rates insanely low, and refusing to measure or report the actual inflation numbers.

In the Weimar republic, the Germans hyperinflated their currency in order to pay off their debts with funny money. Screwed the poor and led to Hitler.

We are borrowing money, printing money, doing everything we can to "spur growth." And we are desperately lying about what we are doing.

You remember the last debt ceiling fight? Where we gave Obama another couple of trillion to spend? It was supposed to last him through 2012, so all the bad news would hit after his re-election.

But we're spending money so fast, we're going to hit our debt limits right around November.

He's going to be running for reelection while trying to borrow another couple of trillion dollars to prop up his socialist fantasy.

My entire life we've been talking about what's going to happen when the boomers retire. It's a crisis that we saw 30 fucking years ago. What have we done? Nothing. Decided it would be fun to socialize medicine.

So now the boomers are retiring. And we need lots and lots of people to pay for their retirement. And where are those people? We aborted them.

Mark Steyn has a funny rant on this. We need more people to pay for our socialist paradise, and the key plank on the socialist platform is...

Are you a complete idiot? Or are you just so uninformed about the facts of life that you believe that as soon as a woman has a child she no longer needs birth control to prevent or appropriately time future pregnancies? Jeez.

Most moms use birth control, so that they don't become moms again before they want to. And most moms not actively using birth control right now did use it in the past and will use it again in the future.

"But it's distractingly oxymoronic: if you use birth control, it's to avoid motherhood."

Seriously? You think nobody ever has a kid or two and then goes on birth control? Or uses birth control to avoid having kids at inopportune times. Or used birth control when younger and then chose to become a mother?

You seem to feel that anyone who has ever used birth control must always and forever use it, that's the only way your claim of the term being oxymoronic carries even the slightest sense.

Or could it be you are simply deflecting from an uncomfortable point: that in a year when the GOP might, might, win on economic issues they've decided to launch themselves into a full throated condemnation of birth control...

Or could it be you are simply deflecting from an uncomfortable point: that in a year when the GOP might, might, win on economic issues they've decided to launch themselves into a full throated condemnation of birth control...

These conservative Republican Christians are just batshit crazy. With our economy melting down, staggering debt and the only thing that gets their cocks hard is to pound away on social issues.

"My understanding is that the birth control pill costs about $20 a month. Are there truly women so destitute that they can't afford five dollars a week to pick up this tab? This issue seems totally manufactured."

Uh huh, and what if the pill doesn't work for you? Not everyone can take the pill without significant side effects. What if you need an IUD or Norplant or Depo-provera? Or what if you happen to be a man looking for a vasectomy?

Oh right, those cost a lot more so you don't want to talk about those.

What if you need an IUD or Norplant or Depo-provera? Or what if you happen to be a man looking for a vasectomy?

Oh right, those cost a lot more so you don't want to talk about those.

Men get vasectomies, so those won't be "free" under Obamacare.Many plans cover these things with a co-pay now, including MedicAid.But that isn't enough. We need to start a panic about "birth control moms".Some middle class woman might have to pay 20% of the cost of her IUD! We just can't have that.

Now, when Obama was pushing his amorphous idea for Obamacare, his economists told us when employers can spend less on health insurance benefits, they will turn around and pay their employees that money. Employees' wages go up.So let's imagine for a moment that Catholic institutions pay their employees enough to pay for their own birth control. Is that unpossible?

Oh, and IUDs and vasectomies don't cost a lot more, they just cost more up front. The upper end price for each of them is $1000. An IUD last 12 years and a vasectomy is permanent.

Is this really what we need our government to focus on? We want to make it sound as if working women can't save up their pennies enough to buy these items so we need our Top Levels of Government to get involved? We are that helpless?

You can pretend to be a dog and go to a vet. Castration is about a hundred bucks, I think. And aggression levels go down!

So, cost savings and lower crime rates. Feminist paradise with eunuchs and cunnilingus. We build peaceful little grass hut communities, and wait for humanity to die out. Which I believe will be a net boon for the environment. So, win win win.

Republicans are no more trying to outlaw birth control than Democrats are trying to make it illegal to be a Catholic. Well, as long as said Catholic goes along with free birth control and gay marriage.

So screw the $100,000,000,000,000 unfunded liability in Big Entitlement. We need to vote Democrat this fall so insurance companies and employers will be forced by the federal gov't to give free birth control and abortion pills to their employees.

Are there truly women so destitute that they can't afford five dollars a week to pick up this tab?

Are there truly women who so need to be treated like children that they can't pay for their own contraception like adults, rather than having some paternalistic insurer, employer, or government buy it for them?

No -- there aren't women so destitute that they can't reallocate five dollars a week from the rest of their entertainment budget (movies, cable TV, having their nails done, etc.) in order for them to have recreational sex whenever they want.

But then again, money isn't the issue -- even the One Percenters get to have the other 99 Percent pay money to subsidize their sex lives.

Living paycheck to paycheck and every $5 counting. Often in debt 'cause the paycheck doesn't cover the necessities. Credit cards charging 25%+ interest. Going with less food so their children can have something to pack in their lunches. That's the life of many, many -- perhaps most -- low income working women. Covering birth control is wise, realistic and humanitarian government policy.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing to stop any employer from unilaterally cutting the wages of their employees by $25-50 per month, thereby passing the cost of contraceptives back on to whom the responsibility lies in the first place.

That's the life of many, many -- perhaps most -- low income working women. Covering birth control is wise, realistic and humanitarian government policy.

Yes, and government-provided MedicAid does cover it. This "government policy" is about all women, not just low income. And it isn't the government administering the policies.Now, what is the mindset of the low income working woman who has a child who needs to always carry an epi-pen? Or who is diabetic? Does the government not care?

William said... My understanding is that the birth control pill costs about $20 a month. Are there truly women so destitute that they can't afford five dollars a week to pick up this tab? This issue seems totally manufactured.

How many American women use birth control? It wouldn't surprise me if the number was in the tens of millions. Multiply that by the $20 a month figure you provide and the cost is billions per year. Who is going to pay for that? Is anyone so stupid as to believe the insurance companies aren't just going to pass that cost on to everyone?

And why should contraceptives be "free"? If you have just about any other prescription, you're going to have a copay. Why should contraceptives be any different?

Obama is just trying to buy women's votes by giving them "free stuff." It's very cynical and will probably work.

I don't give a damn one way or the other about women using contraceptives. I do give a damn about being forced to pay for it.

I think that the biggest reason that "birth control moms" hits such a weird off-note is that "soccer moms" and "security moms" (a play on soccer moms) refers in a derogatory way to otherwise liberal suburban housewives who have some odd conservative quirk. They're heads-down in child-rearing and don't really go heads-up unless something threatens their children. And when they do pay attention they swing right.

So what is this? This time when they go heads-up they're going to swing left? This is possible. But I think that most of them vote left already.

Keep in mind that Santorum's latest is telling a gathering of Evangelicals in Ohio he doesn't want insurers to cover prenatal testing because some might consider abortion if there is a problem or a discovered severe genetic, birth defect. Best that people wait until the delivery room to see what delightful surprise or testing challenge to their faith Jesus gave them.

He coupled this with his standard stump speech that not only is his dying Trisomy-18 daughter "Gods Gift" to the Santorum Family, but each child with challenges deserves to be born on sanctity of life. That he doesn't like the term "birth defect". That Obama's people want testing because it is cheaper to kill babies than love them as Rick does.And what is needed is Federal aid, substantial tax cuts, and availability of in-home care for a family met with the challenges of a special needs child.

I think some women (and some prospective parent men) might object to "it is best to keep them ignorant" strategy - along with Rick's other theocratic views on contraception, need for women to stop acting like sluts and needing to use birth control, working instead of making more precious babies, no abortion except if a woman is dying if she doesn't have one.

And Federal law to cover this, along with Fed aid for families trying to use every heroic measure to keep a dying infant alive as long as possible.

Keep in mind that Santorum's latest is telling a gathering of Evangelicals in Ohio he doesn't want insurers to cover prenatal testing because some might consider abortion if there is a problem or a discovered severe genetic, birth defect. Best that people wait until the delivery room to see what delightful surprise or testing challenge to their faith Jesus gave them.

He coupled this with his standard stump speech that not only is his dying Trisomy-18 daughter "Gods Gift" to the Santorum Family, but each child with challenges deserves to be born on sanctity of life. That he doesn't like the term "birth defect". That Obama's people want testing because it is cheaper to kill babies than love them as Rick does.And what is needed is Federal aid, substantial tax cuts, and availability of in-home care for a family met with the challenges of a special needs child.

I think some women (and some prospective parent men) might object to "it is best to keep them ignorant" strategy - along with Rick's other theocratic views on contraception, need for women to stop acting like sluts and needing to use birth control, working instead of making more precious babies, no abortion except if a woman is dying if she doesn't have one.

And Federal law to cover this, along with Fed aid for families trying to use every heroic measure to keep a dying infant alive as long as possible.

"...a birth control mom likes to see the kids using birth control, when they fuck, which they will do... you can't stop 'em..."

It is interesting that leftists feel that their control stops here with their own kids. You might think it would be easier, what with the kids ostensibly being closer to home and all...really, control of behaviors is really only for non-leftists after all.

Seriously, getting preggers as the Brits say is a fear of working women whether single or married and already raising several kids.

The offer of even a token of Government money is a signal that Obama feels their fear. Especially when he can contrastthat to an Ayn Rand philosophy that abandons them for their own good.

We seem to be narrowing politics into two camps these days. One is Neo-Malthusians who hate babies that cost money and natural resources. The other is Conservatives who hate women that get pregnant and cost money.

It's hard for me to support either position. So I'll take the merciful candidate who means what he says over an ideologue. Whether he is labeled a Dem or a Repubbie is not that relevant.

"Or could it be you are simply deflecting from an uncomfortable point: that in a year when the GOP might, might, win on economic issues they've decided to launch themselves into a full throated condemnation of birth control..."

How can the GOP win on economic issues by affirming the financial mandates of Obamacare?

How does "Yes, we should have government in charge of demanding that everyone pay for all this stuff" work with even the mildest message that government needs to be smaller and financially responsible?

Entitlements are destroying us. We're supposed to have a party that more people than ever are on some sort of government assistance, like this is something to celebrate.

And when someone says, "Where's the money coming from?" Well, they're just mean, mean, mean, want to deny women birth control, and ought to shape up and talk about the economy?

the best thing to say is that Obama wiggled the bait of contraception and the Republicans bit. unless Santorum fades like the others as a potential Rep candidate, Obama has a better chance for reelection.

The sad part is I hear very little rage from the Tea Partiers and Fi-Cons who should be pissed that the Reps are even concerning themselves over this. The best thing they (the Reps) should have done is mention how contraception mandate is a state issue rather than federal, give some props for the Catholic church then constantly slam O on the economy.

Notice how only after this has played out for 3 weeks have they NOW started mentioning the economy. It's too late - now people will equate Republicans with social oppression (yeah, I said it). Add the fact that almost all of the new Republican governors are tinkering with abortion issues and Obama's getting Christmas (or at least an Easter basket) early in terms of support.

There is a chance that O played this card too early and the issue could be solved by May. But the idea that Reps will be claiming no govt intervention while criticizing BC could be a permanent mark until election day.

The birth control mandate is the First Amendment issue, but that isn't the only expense Obama has decided everyone must cover for all women.The mandate includes zero co-pay coverage for breast pumps, mammograms, and domestic abuse screening. It also requires all employers with more than 50 employees to build a special lactation room with a refrigerator for breast milk storage. You can't use the "poor working woman who can't pay $10/month for important birth control" to explain away all of that.

The "free" goodies for women is all over this law, making women quite expensive to hire. Not only that, but eventually some other group will get angry for being shut out of the free-o-rama. Someone else who feels their illness is just as worthy of free coverage as breast feeding is.

The "recreational sex" some seem to so disdain is one of the things that holds a marriage together and maintains the bond between partners.

In fact, it is the ability to have unrestrained recreational sex that inhibits the vast majority of sexually-active couples from ever marrying in the first place, not to mention saying to those who are married that you don't need to stay married to have such sex.

Far from being unitive, contraception is, literally, a barrier between people. It frustrates unity (especially that unity which is communion), it doesn't enhance it. It frustrates and impedes the ability of the relationship to be authentically fruitful in love and spirit, in preference to a sterile and barren existence.

I worked in a place with a lactation room. It was a storage closet off the women's bathroom. I worked long hours and occasionally I would take a nap there. My boss kept a refrigerator from Cosco in her office for diet Cokes. These are not big costs.

Be glad there is wv here. Go to Townhall to see what not having it is like.Every 10th comment is a 300 word pidgin English sales pitch.It's a test. If you can't word verify you're not clever enough to be interesting anyway.

"In fact, it is the ability to have unrestrained recreational sex that inhibits the vast majority of sexually-active couples from ever marrying in the first place, not to mention saying to those who are married that you don't need to stay married to have such sex."

So let's tease out this line of thinking, shall we?

You only are supposed to have sex after marriage. And the church wants to control the process and definition of marriage. In other words the church tries to act as a gate keeper for sex. You know sex- that basic impulse almost all human beings have at the same level as the need to eat.

You may be comfortable turning over a basic human need to a bunch of child molesters because they claim to hear god but not all of us are so masochistic. And frankly trying to pull that crap is a far greater violation of the first amendment than requiring catholic businesses not to forbid their employees contraception.

I worked in a place with a lactation room.... My boss kept a refrigerator from Cosco in her office for diet Cokes.

And all this without federal mandates! How can that be?

Oh, right:

These are not big costs.

So why do you think the rest of the country should pay for yours or anybody else's b.c. pills? If it's cost-effective for them to be covered by insurance, then they already are. If they're not covered, then it's not cost-effective to do so.

Oh, and BTW: It's not going to be free to anybody when it raises the cost of employees to employers.

I think if sex is recreational it should be the responsibility of the person indulging in it. You don't expect me to pay for your skis, or movie tickets do you? Or, maybe you do, in which case you're a whiny brat.

I think abortion is for many folks, about women's freedom. Child is slavery. Child keeps you down. Child makes you poor and unhappy.

I think there is in liberalism a certain contempt for women who have children. "Barefoot and pregnant" is an insult. They're calling you stupid.

And liberals really have contempt for multiple children, for large families.

And, of course, for Catholics.

Indeed, one might argue that liberal support for gay rights is actually support for non-reproductive sex. They don't want you to have babies.

Most of our sex laws are in regard to reproduction. We outlaw prostitution because sex leads to babies. We used to outlaw sodomy because we think sex should lead to babies. We think homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn't lead to babies. We think adultery is wrong because it leads to dead babies.

Once you realize sex leads to babies--and it's surprising how long it takes this realization to hit some of us--you immediately become more conservative about sex.

Not because sex isn't amazing or fun. But because sex leads to babies. Thus sex is important. And it's too important to leave to government planners or government mandate.

Contraception is none of the state's damn business, really.

As long as Santorum sticks to libertarian arguments and points out the control freak aspects of socialism, he'll do fine.

"And liberals really have contempt for multiple children, for large families."

Actually, liberals have contempt for almost everyone. In this case, however, they are particularly stupid, short-sighted and/or indifferent since more people are needed to support the debts and social programs produced by liberal lunacy.

I don't understand the mindset of 'just don't force me to pay for your birth control'. I'm unsure just who the 'me' is in this the discussion. The employer, other employees, the insurance company, who?

If an employer's benefit package includes medication coverage, then any 'mainstream' medication for any issue should be covered. I manage the medical benefits for my employer. The only medications that are not covered are newer drugs that have just come on the market, and this only for the first month while the insurer adds it to the list.

Birth control coverage is one on the least purchased medications in our plan where the employee ratio is 80% women v. 20 % men. Antidepressants top the list, followed by HRT, diabetes, thyroid, various cancer medications, other medical conditions of heart, respiratory, kidney, liver, stomach, colon,allergies, and the smallest piece of the pie chart going to erectile dysfunction.dys. yemanyk

I'm thinking back to a time, just 20 - 30 years ago, when my younger, poorer, college/grad. school self (and significant other / spouse) managed to pay for contraception, and then a vasectomy, out of our own pockets. Somehow we managed this without thinking that it was an unendurable burden, or that society should pay for it.

I'm thinking back to a time, just 20 - 30 years ago, when my younger, poorer, college/grad. school self (and significant other / spouse) managed to pay for contraception, and then a vasectomy, out of our own pockets. Somehow we managed this without thinking that it was an unendurable burden, or that society should pay for it.

I'm thinking of a future when we'll swipe our Medicaid cards in the gas station bathrooms and get free rubbers. Progress!

Of course we might have to give a DNA sample first. And fill out some forms in triplicate. And don't get forget the $25 co-pay.

This summer, you will be getting information that you may only purchase insurance plans that cover birth control pills, sterilization for women, and breast pumps with zero copay.It will be illegal for you to cover these items in the same way you cover other medication.

Or maybe you won't get the information from the government. Frankly, I'm surprised you don't know about it yet.

Presumably, if the insurance company is forced to eat the cost, it will be passed on to all the insured, right?

The insurance company increases the cost of the insurance coverage to the purchaser of the insurance. In this case, the employer. When the cost to the employer becomes too much the co-pay for the employee increases, so at the end of the day the costs increase for all employees. However, if my company is a reflection of the average, birth control pills are towards the bottom of the list. Menopausal women are the most costly employees to cover, but no one bitched about it when their co-pay increased because of this group's health needs.

"no one bitched about it when their co-pay increased because of this group's health needs."

How do you know, though? People at my company bitch all the time about the spiraling cost of health insurance. Maybe nobody complained about that specific group driving up health care costs -- probably because very few people realize that they are so costly -- but I just don't believe employees come out of the yearly benefits enrollment meeting saying, "Oh boy! Isn't it great our premiums are going up AGAIN? I can't wait!!"

It will be illegal for you to cover these items in the same way you cover other medication

What a complicated way of going about it. Pulling out bits and pieces here and there. I assume surgical sterilization? This should come under the medical health insurance same as vasectomies. Breast pumps aren't included now. The only devices that are included are those which deliver the drug such as insulin, epi pens, etc.

Or maybe you won't get the information from the government. Frankly, I'm surprised you don't know about it yet.

Canada here, though the insurance companies that carry our 'extended benefits' such as drug coverage and some 'non medical' services are all American. They're all making money.

How do you know, though? People at my company bitch all the time about the spiraling cost of health insurance.

In my company the employer pays 100% of health benefits. It is however, a taxable benefit. If an employee is off on unpaid leave for over a month they must pick up 50 % of their health insurance cost, and can elect to drop 'extended health' (drug coverage), as well as LTD insurance coverage which they're responsible 100% for when on leave.

Does this not imply that there is very little demand out there for !!free birth control!! NOW!!

One could argue that the reason there is little demand is that other types of birth control fall under covered medical benefits, IUD's etc,or depo provera shots which would also be covered under medical benefits.

If anyone was going to complain about co-pay drug costs at my company it would be directed at HRT consisting of 30% of the drug costs covered. As the work force consists mostly of women of all ages everyone is pretty forgiving that when the co-pay portion increased it was due to the women employees. By the same standard no one resents men's drug costs consisting of erectile dysfunction medication. It would be hugely hypocritical to do so.

It's only complicated if you don't realize that groups that give a lot of political donations wanted these specific things covered this way.Once you realize it's more about reelection than about sound insurance policy, it all makes sense.

write_effort said...Living paycheck to paycheck and every $5 counting. Often in debt 'cause the paycheck doesn't cover the necessities. Credit cards charging 25%+ interest. Going with less food so their children can have something to pack in their lunches. That's the life of many, many -- perhaps most -- low income working women. Covering birth control is wise, realistic and humanitarian government policy.

Um, when their insurance premium increases how "realistic" will it be then?

Also, is there anything the government could mandate that you'd be against?

Uh huh, and what if the pill doesn't work for you? Not everyone can take the pill without significant side effects. What if you need an IUD or Norplant or Depo-provera? Or what if you happen to be a man looking for a vasectomy?

Oh right, those cost a lot more so you don't want to talk about those.

Oh no, actually I do.

See, I don't believe any government has the authority to mandate what is or is not in a private insurance contract.

Once you realize it's more about reelection than about sound insurance policy, it all makes sense.

The left has been pushing contraceptives in schools, contraceptives in Africa, contraceptives anywhere and everywhere for years now.

Just last year, the Administration's number one concern with sex trafficking was not that victims be saved from trafficking, but that victims be given access to contraceptives and abortion by those Catholic organizations working to end trafficking.

Twice Pope Benedict has made apostolic journeys to Africa and both times the number one issue with the media was condoms. Meanwhile, for the last few years, the left has been pushing to force Catholic adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples.

This is not Obama trying to deflect from a bad economic record. This is a long-standing concerted effort to implement a contraception/abortion society that does not allow for any dissenters, but instead takes purposeful aim at the Catholic Church and demands fealty and approval.

I was waiting for it..didn't expect it so soon. Advocate wrote: "If an employer's benefit package includes medication coverage, then any 'mainstream' medication for any issue should be covered."

The Right's focus on the religious side misses broader issues. Despite the fact sex is a voluntary act and not an affliction, much mileage can be had by conflating mandating no copay non means tested insurance coverage of contraception with reproductive rights. It's a "war on women". There are good votes to be gained by pushing that narrative. And once you cover the pill or condoms, of course the only sensible fair thing is to have no copay non means tested coverage of every other drug that actually addresses afflictions. As a slight modification of Obama's campaign promise (on energy) "Under my plan of increasing mandated coverages, health insurance costs will necessarily skyrocket" He is well aware of the principle of cost shifting.And once all the vote baiting mandates drive up the cost of insurance, the case will be made that those greedy companies can't be trusted and a more complete government takeover of insurance will be the answer. It's brilliant.

There is a supposed a counter argument saying a mandate like this saves money:http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/211563-insurers-could-take-hit-from-birth-control-mandate#comment-443589687

"Health plans will be able to offer contraceptive coverage for free because, according to studies cited by the government, contraceptives cost substantially less than pregnancies,"

Ah...so we are to believe that employed women with health insurance have up until the mandate been getting pregnant simply because they (or their partner) couldn't afford birth control?

Then there's the angle that may resonate with Ann's students, Fluke's blocked testimony that had teh nets alight with concern over the male panel "deciding women's reproductive rights".Considering they were discussing the religious Catholic component in that hearing, they might have had some nuns up there for gender balance and better optics ;) But after reading it, I wonder if they did her a favor preventing her testimony: "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Students like her have no choice but to go without contraception."

Her testimony reads like sex is a solo random event that can strike out at studious young women with no warning. So..therefore a mandate for no copay non means tested coverage makes sense? I think between her and her partner(s) there are a number of choices. Yeah..takes two for this to be a concern. Maybe she saw the condoms as she left the pharmacy. Again, the trap of viewing this so much through the Catholic side misses the larger problem of treating sex as an affliction. (The stuff regarding PCOS and other actual afflictions is an attempt to blur the larger issue. If the insurers are not accepting a doctor's diagnosis, that's a big deal that needs to be remedied. But it would be the case in any affliction.)

Once you realize it's more about reelection than about sound insurance policy, it all makes sense

Aye, put that way, it does.

This perspective is never part of the debate in Canada. Also, health care is a provincial(state) issue never a part of the federal political discussion except for transfer payments(health care) of federal taxes into provincial coffers. That gets argued about, between the levels of government, but never all the social/religious/political stuff we see you folks putting up with. I don't know how you all stomach it monopolizing every discussion. Nothing ever seems to actually get done.

Not to say our current federal government wouldn't like to venture into some issues but it's all rather secular here, much the way most people want it.

"See, I don't believe any government has the authority to mandate what is or is not in a private insurance contract."

Of course they do. Regulation is a key function of government and very few areas require more careful regulation than health care.

Ideally we'd just do away with private insurance and go to the single payer system that most of the rest of the world uses, and which works significantly better and WAY cheaper than our system. But that's not happening soon (unless the mandate gets struck down, cross fingers) so we have to do the best we can with a bad situation.

And since insurance companies have proven themselves to be some of the vilest and most revolting companies in the world in terms of abusing people I'm not gonna be upset if the government wants to ream them with a paperwork enema, frankly.

America is trillions (that's thousands of billions) in debt, ruled over by a man who 1) complained George Bush's $469B deficit was irresponsible and 2) would "cut the deficit in half." And the issue is more spending? On birth control?

If this is what passes as a legitimate issue while we face genuine crisis, we're all truly screwed.

Yes and no. It seems to me that the administration cleverly culled the believing Catholics out of the herd and said, "Hey Catholics! We're going to piss on you and there's nothing you can do about it!" And since it's an issue of religious doctrine, most people don't really care, especially if as a result they get more free stuff.

It would be sort of like passing a public health requirement requiring a kosher restaurant to keep all its meat and dairy on the same shelf. Most people would just shrug their shoulders and say, "Whatever." Only some Jews and people who really care about religious freedom would get upset.

So I can understand why the R's are making a big deal out of it. But most people are just going to think, "there go the Republicans, being weird about sex again." But it's mostly not about that at all. I think.

I hedge my position somewhat because I'm neither a Catholic nor a Republican, so I don't think I have my finger on the pulse of either group. Personally, I don't care if my company's health plan covers contraception or not -- I haven't checked, but I suspect it probably does. But mandating coverage seems like a huge intrusive hammer to smash a non-problem, the Administration's cover story about poor womens! unable to afford! notwithstanding (because I simply don't believe it).

Very true. Sex requires two people who between them should be able to cover their own contraception. Especially if they are employed and have insurance to help them with the unpredictable injury or affliction...the proper domain of insurance.

I noticed who brought up stuff when. Mitch M. decided to make it a political issue because he thought it was a winner. He's usually a better chess player. Don't understand why he wants to do this instead of the economy.

I think think Obama is one of the luckiest politicians I've ever seen. High unemployment & the worse recession since the Great Depression and his opponents want to talk about birth control.

"But mandating coverage seems like a huge intrusive hammer to smash a non-problem, the Administration's cover story about poor womens! unable to afford! notwithstanding (because I simply don't believe it)."

You're not the target group unless you changed your vote over this. The optics are horrible for undecided women voters. The picture of all the men testifying at that governmental hearing. There's no talk of women who use b.c. for medical reasons like endometriosis or ovarian cysts. Polls are showing unmarried women doing a 20 point shift away from Romney to Obama.

Harper (the conservative) stays away from culture war stuff and sticks to the economy. That's why he wins.

Are you genetically programmed to have recreational sex, that is, intentionally non-reproductive sex?

Sure, so as to perpetuate the species, a male is genetically given the urge to eject his procreative genetic material into the reproductive tract of the female, where it might join with her procreative genetic material, and the organs specific to each are designed and function to accomplish this reproductive act.

But is a man genetically programmed to insert his reproductive organ into a woman's reproductive organ just for kicks?

Or is that a purely voluntary act engaged in -- or not engaged in -- by free choice of the will?

canuck said: "They use b.c. to manage it. That woman at Georgetown law who didn't get to testify lost an ovary because she had PCOS."

Actually it was a friend of Fluke's who lost the ovary.

"For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy."

Yes, there are many instances of drugs being used for more than one indication. But again, as I mentioned, if a diagnosis from a doctor is not being honored, that is a separate problem that needs a different remedy. It doesn't lead to mandated no copay non-means tested coverage for a two party voluntary behavior as opposed to an affliction...unless you're buying votes or paving the way for full coverage of every other prescription.

By the way, we are also programmed to eat. And to borrow another poster's line, it's a good thing for marriages if a couple can eat. You might even call it a humanitarian concern.

Does that lead to "free" food for everyone regardless of ability to pay? Again, the mandate only sort of works if you can lump it in with injury or affliction. Yet unlike eating, the programming allows for abstinence, masturbation or the two people involved to pool resources to buy appropriate contraception.

As long as the government isn't telling them to cover it (or not), then it's not a big deal to me.

The government IS telling them to cover it. It must be part of every health plan, including family plans; contraceptive coverage for EVERY covered person -- married, single, adult, minor, post-menopausal, post-hysterectomy, other infertile, sexually active, celibate, virgins, everyone.

And you get the privilege of having to pay so that someone can have sex without consequences with your little 11-year-old girl (and don't expect Planned Parenthood to report the guy for child rape, they'll just give her the pills, pat her on the head, and send her on her way).

By the way, did you see in the news that prosecutors have decided not to pursue criminal charges against Kathleen Sebelius and her attorney general when she was governmor of Kansas for the destruction of records evidence in court cases that had been brought against Planned Parenthood for failing to report cases of child sex abuse?

I will say that, as a married person of many many years, the notion that sex is a natural drive and because of that it is morally wrong to inhibit that drive in any way, and so the State, as not to inhibit that drive, must provide contraception for free (one way or another) is sort of heart-breaking.

Because if you follow the logic of that world view, it also means that expecting fidelity is impossible, since fidelity is inhibiting the sex drive, limiting by choice what your lizard brain desires.

I know that some romance novels, propose the situation where fidelity naturally occurs without effort, without inhibition, but romance novels are fantasy.

I wish people would spend more thought on what *else* a particular part of their world view requires be true.

Sex is like breathing... gotta do it, wrong to fuss or frown or disapprove. In fact sex is so fundamental that it's actually wrong and oppressive to ask someone to keep it in their pants or keep their knees together. Oppression! In fact, it's soooo fundamental that in order to not be oppressive you've got to subsidize the free exercise of sex for others. What's next? The state has to provide procurers?

If that all sounds like I'm taking it to the absurd, the only element that isn't part of the "OH NOES the religious prudes want to stop our fun time" argument we've been hearing for the last week is the very last element *only*.

But still, what makes me sad is that we seem to be *demanding* that sex can not be denied, and that means fidelity is out as well, and I think we're giving our children a rather depressing world to live in.

I think we're giving our children a rather depressing world to live in

There are already enough high schoolers and middle schoolers who have been encouraged to think that if they haven't lost their virginity before they are 16-18 then they are a freak and total loser.

And then there are those adults who are freaks and losers, those who are not all that attractive and cannot get dates. What about their fundamental right to all sex all the time on someone else's dime?

Saint Croix asked if a vibrator counts as contraception? After all, it is 100 percent certain to prevent pregnancy. So, shouldn't the ugly and the fat and the other social undesirables be able to get free sex toys? or free porn? or free prostitutes? Should a prostitute be allowed a right of conscience to say "no" to deny the rights of some gross guy who wants to use his healthcare benefits for free "sex therapy"?

"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Students like her have no choice but to go without contraception."

What is a "public interest" scholarship? Is this how people learn to be community organizers?

Which may be why those people somehow think that others paying for their recreational sex is in the public good.

I have long wondered why anyone would think that those going into "public interest" law of any sort, or even government service, should get any break whatsoever when it comes to law school (or other school) costs. Yet, we constantly see schemes for them to get forgiveness, etc. on their student loans, etc.

But, if you look at what a lot of them do, you could ask if they really are doing anything in the public good, or, rather, are advocates for a socialized government which would seriously reduce the welfare of the vast majority. Yet, somehow, we are being asked to subsidize this counter-productive behavior.

The woman should have felt embarrassed - that she was asking everyone else to pay for her recreational sex.

Law school usually takes 3 years, correct? So that would be $1,000 per year, or about $20 per week. I haven't been in the market for contraception for some time -- can anybody corroborate that cost?

It's also interesting that this is being pitched as entirely a womens' issue -- only women need contraception, only women must bear the cost. Presumably there's a spouse/boyfriend involved who would be willing to chip in, no?

I commented HERE about my local paper's regurgitation of Team Obama's talking reasons for forcing people of all ethical beliefs to support birth control and abortion.

I read on and decided that perhaps we should be a little more forgiving to the brain damaged yahoos who wrote that Virginian Pilot editorial. I’m talking about their ludicrous claim that the birth control and abortion mandate will be revenue neutral for insurance companies. You remember the argument: giving birth control pills and paying for abortions is less costly than paying for a woman to give birth? It appears that instead of making that stupid argument all by themselves, they are repeating a talking point from the Obama administration. Which means that there is now no question that it’s a lie. We are reinforced in our opinion by this article from The Hill “Insurance industry could take hit from birth control mandate”

“Privately, however, insurers say there's nothing "free" about preventing unwarranted pregnancies. They say the mandate also covers costly surgical sterilization procedures, and that in any case even the pill has up-front costs.

"Saying it's revenue-neutral doesn't mean it's free and that you're not paying for it," an industry source told The Hill.

Doctors still have to be paid to prescribe the pill, drugmakers and pharmacists have to be paid to provide it - and all that money has to come from insurance premiums, not future hypothetical savings, the source said.”

The insurance industry is very dependent on the government and is not going to stick it’s neck out to oppose Obama on the record so they are not going to go on the record in opposition. They are simply going to increase premiums to cover the mandate.

Here is another indication of the Obama administration’s view of childbirth: it’s an illness. I quote from the White House fact sheet: “Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services," Let me repeat that for people who are not paying attention or who are cheering the government’s edicts on religion: contraception keeps women healthy!” The next time you see a pregnant woman; know that by definition of the Obama administration she is diseased.

"The woman should have felt embarrassed - that she was asking everyone else to pay for her recreational sex."

It is strange, isn't it?

How is this feminism in any form?

She isn't liberated, rather it's a pathetic 'white whine' of entitlement that others (including the Catholic Church) are responsible for her choices. She oblivious that she is a slave to contraception, completely blind, as if there are no other options.

Birth Control Daddy says you're ready for sex, when you're mature enough to buy -- with your own money -- your own birth control devices.

See, kids who rely on the government for "freebie" fucks, definitely end up misusing the product, and then want us to subsidize their "accidents" too.

Mommies: teach em independence. That way, they'll have true freedoms and choices, if they can pay their own way. This is baloney the libs want to feed you about sexual freedom. Nobody's talking about outlawing birth control. We just object to paying for your choices, out of our own adult pay.

Canuck said...I think think Obama is one of the luckiest politicians I've ever seen. High unemployment & the worse recession since the Great Depression and his opponents want to talk about birth control.

Not really, no.

This has to do with Obamacare which is unpopular.

Why do people continue to insist this issue is some political loser?

If it is so bad for Republicans, why are the Democrats the ones lying about the issue?

One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Students like her have no choice but to go without contraception."

Oh the poor little fawn!

Anyway, notice the lie there? "Contraception" is now redefined to mean birth control pills.

Isn't that nice?

By the way, I thought law school was like all hard and stuff and everyone was busy cracking the books until 2am. I guess there is plenty of time to hump your brains out when you're not being turned away by big meanie pharmacists.

Yes, I know. I thought that was clear in what I wrote -- I object to this because I think it's a dick move on the part of the Administration, forcing a religious group to violate their precepts, to "solve" a non-problem.

If the company chooses to offer insurance that covers contraception, that's fine by me.

You do realize you are starting to sound like a caricature of a sex-obsessed conservative with your ranting about 11-year-olds, right?

"The woman should have felt embarrassed - that she was asking everyone else to pay for her recreational sex."

That's why those mean old men did her a favor by not allowing her to testify. Conversely, if Fluke was put forward as the best case for the mandate, I almost wish they had let her speak. A few simple questions of her would have likely revealed even more problems with her logic. But then, so many would not have been able to look past the multiple males oppressing the poor law student..the "war on women" writ large.

You may be comfortable turning over a basic human need to a bunch of child molesters

What? Are we turning over that human need to teachers/educators? They take the top spot by far on the annual list of sex molesters. If fact their yearly total exceeds the 30-year cumulative total for RC priests by far. Or psychologists/counselor--the second place finisher on that annual list? Or any of the top ten, none of which is "RC priest"?

By bringing up RC priest, you are showing that you are a disingenuous asshole. But that probably makes you proud, doesn't it?

Paco wrote: "It's also interesting that this is being pitched as entirely a womens' issue -- only women need contraception, only women must bear the cost. Presumably there's a spouse/boyfriend involved who would be willing to chip in, no?"

You have to understand pregnancy as an affliction..a sort of natural disaster. Fluke could be studying teh pros and cons of torte reform and out of the blue, "WHAM!". She has to be protected. The guys don't even know they've done it. They're both "programmed" to do it...it's like breathing.